The Comey hearing: More smoke, wrong fire

About a month ago, National Review editor Rich Lowry called Trump “a human smoke-making machine . . . incapable of a little deftness.” The headline of his opinion piece in Politico characterized the entire Trump-focused wing of the investigation into Russian election interference as “a scandal about smoke.”

When they saw all the Trump-fueled smoke, said Lowry, the Democrats wanted “to make fire.” And when Comey suddenly decided he wanted to testify to the Senate Intelligence Committee, many on the Left christened this the Great Fire-Making Moment.

The narrative almost wrote itself. Comey had been director of the FBI; Trump had fired him due to the Russia investigation; Trump had perhaps pressured Comey to let the investigation of Michael Flynn go. Surely on June 8, the smoke would roll back to reveal a giant conflagration – Comey would accuse Trump of obstruction, let slip that Trump was part of a giant Russian conspiracy, reveal something, anything impeachable. Doctor visits were canceled, watch parties were scheduled, and cable news networks broke out their countdown clocks.

What are those who pushed that narrative left with now?

Well, Comey did confirm that the leak of his memos was accurate, that Trump told him he “hoped” the Flynn investigation would be dropped because Flynn was, in Trump’s estimation, a “good guy.” Comey said that due to Trump’s “imperceptible body language,” he took this as a direction to stop the investigation.

But Trump said the very same thing about Flynn to the press, if you recall. And whatever Comey’s “feelings” about whether Trump meant what he said as a direction, it’s a stretch to use Comey’s feelings as the sole basis of obstruction. To my knowledge, an “I hope” statement has never been used as the sole basis for an obstruction charge.

Comey went on to reveal that the president had made false public statements, didn’t seem to be that concerned about Russian election interference, had directly asked for his loyalty, and had fired him because of his handling of the Russia investigation.

None of that information was new. More smoke; no fire. Collective yawns all around.

Instead, the Comey hearing turned a flamethrower on the charred remains of the Clinton email investigation. Comey revealed that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch had asked him to refer to the FBI investigation of Clinton’s email server as a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” Perhaps not so coincidentally, this is the rhetoric the Clinton campaign was using at the same time.

What’s that? Evidence of Lynch’s DOJ colluding with the Democratic Party? Will wonders never cease.

It’s astonishing to me that Comey chose not to investigate Loretta Lynch in relation to the Clinton email imbroglio after his encounter with her, especially given Lynch’s well-documented meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona. Lynch’s alleged interference in the Clinton investigation must not have had as much “intent” as that alleged in the Trump investigation, I suppose.

Comey’s hearing boiled down to a long, drawn-out attempt by Comey to justify his actions in the Clinton and Trump investigations by slant. It really didn’t work.

Nothing said at the Comey hearing changed my opinion that Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation and the Russia election investigation both bordered on incompetence. Frankly, that’s the only justification Trump needed for his firing, though that’s not the one he gave. As Mr. Lowry said almost a month ago, Trump reliably produces smoke, but even after today’s circus, I see no accompanying fire.

3 Comments

Bryan Woodsmall

June 9, 2017 at 9:36 am

This is an interesting piece, and you make some good points.

However, if there is “no fire” in the Trump smoke, then why is the info about Lynch’s alleged interference, which you say had “as much ‘intent’ as that alleged in the Trump investigation” tantamount to a “flamethrower”?

The “intent” is “as much”, yet with one it is only smoke, and with the other it is a flamethrower. I don’t get that.

I enjoyed the article. It was informative and thought provoking. But elevating the revelations about Lynch as being more damning than the info about Trump seems like partisan spin to me. In fact, both are bad. Some of the info about Lynch is new. That is one difference. Also, Lynch tried to give the appearance of being above the fray, while Trump doesn’t really try to hide his dishonesty and lack of principles. But if Trump’s problems are just smoke, then so are Lynch’s.

Hi, Bryan. Thanks for your comment. The sentence about “intent” which left you so bewildered was meant as a joke. When Comey announced that he wasn’t going to recommend charges against Clinton in the email scandal. Comey justified his actions by saying he found no evidence Clinton intended to do anything illegal. However, the crime Clinton allegedly committed does not require proof of intent to establish guilt. My statement about Lynch’s intent was meant as a joke about Comey’s ability to treat intent as consequential in cases when it isn’t. Once again, thanks for reading.

Ok, I see that I missed the joke, and I missed the word “not” which I now understand as sarcasm that seems more to suggest that Lynch’s interference was perhaps worse than Trump’s, rather than suggest equivalence.

At any rate, your point was NOT to say they were of similar seriousness, so my bad.

Still, while I agree that the revelation that Lynch asked Comey to use the word “matter” instead of “investigation” is a big deal, I don’t see it as a “flamethrower” vs. just “smoke” from the Trump situation. For one thing, asking the FBI to assist with spin doesn’t constitute interference in the investigation itself. It is totally improper for sure, especially since it is the same word the Clinton administration was using, but it still doesn’t amount to actually interfering with the investigation.

Your point about Comey treating intent as consequential when it isn’t is well taken. It kind of seemed like he was trying to thread a needle with a legal and logical explanation for his decision. I don’t know the law well enough to know whether he succeeded. However, in my opinion his actions were very beneficial to the Republican candidate (I’m not saying it was intentional). Had he indicted Clinton, I think she would have been replaced as the Democratic nominee. The new nominee would have had a headwind due to not being chosen by the normal process, but probably would have been a MUCH better candidate than Hillary Clinton. By not indicting her he took away the Dems need to replace her, and by being very critical of her he helped her opponent. So it was a win-win for Trump. And then he disclosed very late in the race that more emails had come to light, and needed to be looked at. I won’t argue either way whether that tipped the election, but it was helpful to Trump in a close race.

I am not knowledgeable enough to assess Comey’s competence or lack thereof, but I think Trump supporters should be grateful for the way he handled the Clinton investigation.

As Republicans face the daunting task of trying to avoid a political blood-bath in November, and as Donald Trump puts his 2020 re-election campaign in gear, the Republican National Committee sent out their official “Trump Agenda Survey.” I know it’s official because it said so in big, bold, red letters at the top.

It’s also a recycled edition of the same survey the RNC sent out last year.

In a cover letter from RNC Chairwoman and niece of Utah carpetbagger Mitt Romney, Ronna McDaniel assured me that Trump has been working hard to “put our nation back on a winning path,” but he needed my help to beat the “DC establishment” and the “unfair treatment” he is receiving from the “biased, lying media.” According to McDaniel, turning our country around after 8 years of Obama isn’t easy.

Is it just me, or did Obama use a similar excuse when he blamed his failures on George W. Bush?

McDaniel then assured me that her #1 priority as RNC Chair was ensuring that the Trump White House and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate kept in touch with people like me—a goal that apparently requires that I send the RNC a nice “skin in the game” donation along with my completed survey.

The survey itself was quite interesting when you consider that, according to Donald Trump, he has accomplished more than any president in history. Why was it interesting? Well . . . let’s just say that if you liked the GOP’s 2016 campaign rhetoric and lies, you’ll love the issues addressed in the Trump agenda survey because THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

In the survey, McDaniel wants me to let her know if I want Trump and Republicans in Congress to fight for:

Like I said before, it’s recycled. Not a single, solitary new idea from the party that is supposedly winning so much that we can’t take it anymore.

Interestingly enough, while the survey offered nothing but the same old recycled promises, some of the GOP’s previously broken promises were noticeably missing, such as: defunding Planned Parenthood, ending DACA, and working to reduce the size and cost of government.

It wasn’t her intention, but McDaniel’s plea for feedback and funds confirms what conservatives have known all along—the GOP has been hijacked by Republicrats and Trumplicans who have no agenda other than their political self-preservation. And in classic “party over principle” fashion, the RNC is recycling the broken promises that got these lying liars elected in the first place.

Despite the P.S. McDaniel included at the end of her letter, Trump and the GOP are doing very little “to Make America Great Again!” They are, however, doing plenty to show why it’s time for conservatives to sever ties with the GOP and build a new party.

Related

The GOP has refused to learn from Trump’s victory.

Once Donald Trump secured not only the nomination, but the Presidency, I thought perhaps that the GOP establishment would be smart enough to learn from this event. It should have been easy to see that the “catastrophe” that they saw in front of them would be a wake-up call to stop supporting moderate to liberal candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and John Kasich. It seemed obvious to me that, whatever you might feel about Trump, the rank and file members of the GOP were in open rebellion against a party that had no interest in actually fulfilling conservative principles like limited government, liberty, and the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

The likes of Mitch McConnell and political operatives (hacks, actually) like Bill Kristol and Rick Wilson would surely see that they needed to stop supporting liberal Republicans like Kasich and Jeff Flake. Right? I mean this was so obvious my 5-year-old could figure it out.

Boy was I wrong.

Instead, the GOP has doubled down on their desire to control the political winds. Like the Democrats do with their “super delegates” in their Presidential nomination process, it is clear that the GOP establishment feels it cannot and should not trust the people to make the best decisions for themselves. Thus far, the GOP has made no move to institute a “super delegate” system in the Presidential nominating process, but with what we’re seeing so far in the 2018 mid-term elections, it is clear that that scenario is a real possibility.

The DC establishment has made it clear that they will manipulate the mid-term elections in such a way that, should they actually maintain control of both the House and Senate, they want it to be full of Republicans that really are not distinguishable from their Democratic colleagues in any significant way.

The Bad News

It is not unusual for the GOP to support their incumbents. From their perspective, if it’s not broke, why fix it, right? Well, the problem is that it IS broken. We have sitting Republicans who have been there for years or even decades, many of whom have done little to nothing to preserve liberty and much to line their own pockets.

In the Georgia 7th Congressional district, Rob Woodall, who is in his 4th term already and was a DC political operative for many years before that, has a voting record that is little different from your average Southern or Mid-Western Democrat. Shane Hazel, a former Marine Force Recon combat veteran who still today works to equip and train our fighting men and women in the private sector, is taking on Woodall, but meeting resistance not just from Woodall, but also from political operatives who don’t want to upset their establishment bosses.

Banks Wise, Hazel’s campaign manager, recently told me the story of how Mike Seigle, the Gwinnett County Republican Chairman, stonewalled them on debates with Woodall. To make a long story short, Seigle seems to have dodged phone calls for weeks on end after promising debates, and then eventually called them off because of his own delays.

“Shane is committing a political no-no,” as Wise put it, “in challenging a sitting Republican Congressman.” In my view, if the GOP were committed to the principles of We the People choosing our own representatives, or if they thought Woodall was really the best candidate, then Seigle and Woodall should have had no problem at all with Woodall debating Hazel.

The truth is though that the GOP is very much afraid of We the People making our own decisions regarding who we want representing and leading us. They don’t like the fact that Trump was nominated. They flat out hate the fact that he was elected, and many of those with insufferable arrogance, like Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, and Tom Nichols would have flat out rather seen a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016. They may see Clinton as a political adversary, but she isn’t their enemy. We are.

In a nearly unprecedented move, the GOP has not only put their full support behind their incumbents, they have also gone so far as to decide who the GOP nominee should be for Senate in seats they don’t currently hold.

One of the most poachable Senate seats this year is the one in Missouri currently held by Claire McCaskill. Jeff Carson, campaign manager for Austin Petersen, told me that it was odd the way they were seeing the establishment pull out all the stops for their preferred candidate, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley. Anyone who has done even five minutes of research on Hawley knows he would be a lap dog for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other weak Republican leaders.

Love him, hate him, or indifferent to him, it’s undeniable that Donald Trump resonated with voters who were normally indifferent, likely because he doesn’t use the normal GOP political tactic of curling up in a corner, sucking on his thumb, and saying “please don’t hurt me” when the routine and meaningless leftist accusations of racism and sexism came flying at him (looking at YOU, Mitt Romney).

Hawley won’t be able to connect with voters who don’t see a difference between the GOP establishment and the Democrats. The establishment would have rather lost to Hillary Clinton than won with Trump. It seems in Missouri they’d rather lose with Hawley than win with a Constitutionalist who they can’t control like Petersen.

The establishment is further involving themselves in state elections that have little bearing on DC as well, but this time using big donors to support a mediocre candidate rather than a Constitutionalist. Former Army Ranger and current Georgia gubernatorial candidate Hunter Hill told me a couple days ago that they are seeing a great deal of money flowing the way of their biggest opponent, Casey Cagle, the state’s Lieutenant Governor.

The Good News

The GOOD news is that the rank and file members of the GOP seem to be fighting back like never before. Hunter Hill said, “The political class is definitely coalescing around Cagle, with career politicians like Orin Hatch coming to stump for him, but the people are seeing our message and it is resonating. We are in 2nd place in the polls, and with Georgia being a runoff state, we like our chances.” Hill also informed me that they were actually doing a fairly good job raising money, but not so much from the big donors, but from average Georgians and other American conservatives who want to see a true conservative become governor of one of the 13 original states.

Perhaps the conservative faithful of the GOP are fighting back?

The mainstream media no longer has an iron grip on messaging. With social media like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, candidates are able to get their message out without the gatekeepers in the media keeping them silent. “We have an effective social media campaign going,” Hunter Hill told me, “and getting our message out in that way is effective.”

However, social media is still controlled by Leftists, with Petersen recently getting a 30-day suspension from Facebook over the issue of 2nd Amendment rights. This form of private censorship should be telling. It’s obvious that the left-leaning Facebook would rather have McCaskill face off against Hawley than Petersen. Why might that be exactly? Seems they believe McCaskill would have an easier time against Hawley.

On the other hand, Erin Cruz, running for Senate in California against Diane Feinstein, who is seeking yet another term that would take her into her 90s, is seeing her messaging blowing up all over social media. While the GOP establishment may be somewhat apathetic to this race as one they can’t win, Erin Cruz is certainly giving the aging Democrat a run for her money as the staunch conservatives in California, tired of seeing their state fall deeper and deeper into Socialism, seem to be enthusiastic over the first-time candidate’s run.

Dr. Ken Wright seems to be doing the same in the California 33rd, a district so blue that the GOP wasn’t even going to run anyone in 2016 until Wright stepped in and got nearly 40% of the vote with no real support. Now that he has support, could Dr. Wright unseat the twisted and corrupt Ted Lieu? It seems that now is the time.

The Upshot

There is plenty of fault to be found in the establishment’s desire to run squish candidates that they can control, but it is ultimately the responsibility of We the People to get out there and decide for whom to vote. People need to take individual responsibility before going to the primary polls and voting for who really represents them.

Each of us must decide for ourselves who really represents us. Do we want judicial nominees and treaties being decided by Constitutionalists like Petersen, or establishment lap dogs like Hawley? Do we want to be represented in the People’s House by stalwart citizens like Shane Hazel, or lifelong politicos like Rob Woodall? Do the people of Georgia want to be governed by a career politician like Casey Cagle, or American heroes like Hunter Hill?

And what about those places where the GOP has just given up? Will Californians rebel against corrupt Democrats like Ted Lieu and Dianne Feinstein and put in their place men and women of honor like Dr. Ken Wright and Erin Cruz? I sure hope so.

Trump’s victory in 2016 in no way saved us. It simply delayed the continuing onslaught of big government that wants to control every aspect of our lives. Get out there and vote, Conservatives. It’s time to finally teach the GOP establishment that they are NOT in charge, we are.

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”

“I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation,to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection,rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought toenjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”